I just had a discussion in one of my classes of Genesis 17. This story of the covenant is powerful, puzzling, and disturbing. Today, I was most struck by the seeming discrepancy between verses 10 and 11. God promises Abraham an eternal covenant, and possession of the land of Canaan. Then God relates what Abraham must do:
10: This is my covenant (brit) that you shall observe between me and you, and between your children after you: Circumcise every male.
So circumcision appears to constitute Israel’s sole obligation to God. This understanding is borne out at the end of the story (verse 14) where every uncircumcised male will be “cut off” from his people. But then:
11: And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it will be as a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Now, which is circumcision, (1) a condition for the covenant or (2) a sign of it? This raises the disturbing part of the story: If the answer is (1), then women cannot participate in the covenant.
Later Jewish commentators don’t seem terribly troubled by this discrepancy. They largely assume (2); even an uncircumcised Jew is still a Jew. For the problem posed by (1), though, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism.
